1 July 2009 tc 2-33.4 2-7

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Intellectual Empathy

2-17. Intellectual empathy is awareness of the need to actively entertain views that differ from our own,

especially those we strongly disagree with. It is to accurately reconstruct the viewpoints and reasoning of

our opponents and to reason from premises, assumptions, and ideas other than our own. Questions that

foster intellectual empathy include—

􀁺To what extent do I accurately represent viewpoints I disagree with?

􀁺Can I summarize the views of my opponents to their satisfaction? Can I see insights in the views

of others and prejudices in my own?

􀁺Do I sympathize with the feelings of others in light of their thinking differently than me?

Intellectual Integrity

2-18. Intellectual integrity consists of holding yourself to the same intellectual standards you expect others

to honor (no double standards). Questions that foster intellectual integrity include—

􀁺Do I behave in accordance with what I say I believe, or do I tend to say one thing and do

another?

􀁺To what extent do I expect the same of myself as I expect of others?

􀁺To what extent are there contradictions or inconsistencies in my life?

􀁺To what extent do I strive to recognize and eliminate self-deception in my life?

Intellectual Perseverance

2-19. Intellectual perseverance is the disposition to work your way through intellectual complexities

despite the frustration inherent in the task. Questions that foster intellectual perseverance include—

􀁺Am I willing to work my way through complexities in an issue or do I tend to give up when I

experience difficulty?

􀁺Can I think of a difficult intellectual problem with which I have demonstrated patience and

determination in working through the difficulties?

Confidence in Reason

2-20. Confidence in reason is based on the belief that one’s own higher interests and those of humankind

are best served by giving the freest play to reason. It means using standards of reasonability as the

fundamental criteria by which to judge whether to accept or reject any belief or position. Questions that

foster confidence in reason include—

􀁺Am I willing to change my position when the evidence leads to a more reasonable position?

􀁺Do I adhere to principles of sound reasoning when persuading others of my position or do I

distort matters to support my position?

􀁺Do I deem it more important to “win” an argument or see the issue from the most reasonable

perspective?

􀁺Do I encourage others to come to their own conclusions or do I try to force my views on them?

Intellectual Autonomy

2-21. Intellectual autonomy is thinking for oneself while adhering to standards of rationality. It means

thinking through issues using one’s own thinking rather than uncritically accepting the viewpoints of

others. Questions that foster intellectual autonomy include—

􀁺To what extent am I a conformist?

􀁺Do I think through issues on my own or do I merely accept the views of others?

􀁺Having thought through an issue from a rational perspective, am I willing to stand alone despite

the irrational criticisms of others?

Chapter 2

2-8 TC 2-33.4 1 July 2009

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

TYPES OF REASONING

2-22. Reasoning is the process of forming conclusions, judgments, facts, opinions, or inferences.

Reasoning assists in forming arguments based upon evidence about observed activities. There are several

reasoning types. For the purposes of this circular, discussion is limited to deductive and inductive

reasoning.

DEDUCTIVE REASONING

2-23. Deductive reasoning, sometimes called deductive logic, is reasoning where a conclusion is a logical

consequence of the premise. Deductive reasoning, however, can lead to false conclusions if the premise is

inaccurate. Deductive reasoning depends on everything being known about a problem set before a

conclusion can be drawn. To some degree, deductive reasoning is used in all problem solving; some

problems rely on little more than deductive reasoning. The challenge for intelligence analysts is to

recognize what problem sets may be solved using deductive reasoning and apply the process effectively.

For example, deductive reasoning is very useful in pattern and link analysis when there is an accurate

volume of information to analyze.

Example

Historical reporting and incident overlays show that the enemy is mining main

supply route (MSR) Blue with improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in the same

area every day.

Time-event charts show the IED activity is occurring every day between the hours

of 0100 to 0400.

Current human intelligence (HUMINT) reporting states that the enemy believes its

IED operations on MSR Blue are very effective and U.S. forces cannot stop the

attacks.

Conclusion: The enemy will continue to mine MSR Blue with IED every night

from 0100 to 0400 hours.

2-24. Based upon information provided in the above example, the analyst can deduce that the enemy will

continue its improvised explosive device (IED) operations on MSR Blue. This conclusion is supported by

the fact that the enemy has a history of conducting IED operations at a certain place and time. In addition,

related reporting indicates the enemy is confident in its ability to successfully continue its IED attacks.